How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: Neil Harrington on 10 Jul 2010 09:53 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:090720101454565042%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <hbmdnf1KIZgLCKrRnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil > Harrington <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >> >>> -- your lens is disqualified by its specs. >> >>> My experience is with the best roughly comparable lens I know of, >> >>> Canon >> >>> Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus >> >>> Lens. >> >> >> >>My Tamron Di II VC LD Aspherical has a significantly wider zoom ratio, >> >>18-270mm. >> > >> > It lacks the quality of either the Canon L or the Panasonic Leica. >> >> Where do you find that in "its specs"? > > a better question is if he's every owned it. he hasn't. by his own > admission, he won't buy canon after they orphaned his fd lenses. Ah. That's interesting. > >> > NOTE: I'm not going to get drawn into a pointless and meaningless >> > debate over the quality of Tamron lenses. If they're good enough for >> > your needs, then by all means use them, but you've effectively conceded >> > the point by doing so. >> >> Tamron makes a wide variety of lenses, and has for decades. Many of them >> have been superb. As with any other manufacturer, including Canon and >> Nikon, >> some models are better than others and there are differences between >> individual lenses as well. Published tests have shown that some Tamrons >> are >> superior to the analogous Nikkors. > > exactly correct. the tamron 90mm macro is one of the best macro lenses > made. last time this came up, he said the lens was junk because one > review said the focus motor was loud. Heh. Yes, I have the Tamron 90mm macro myself and it certainly is superb by any standard. Mine isn't loud, either, but I have the new model with built-in motor. The older ones that coupled to the camera body's AF motor probably were louder as such lenses usually are, but I have never really understood complaints about AF noise. > >> You're the one who claims that no one can have an opinion unless it's >> based >> on lengthy experience with the product, and yet here you are disparaging >> Tamron lenses that you have no experience with and know nothing about -- >> you're apparently basing your opinion on nothing at all except that you >> think one brand name is more prestigious than the other. Talk about >> hypocrisy! > > it's ok when he does it but not when others. he is a hypocrite. he > hasn't owned any of the equipment he bashes.
From: Neil Harrington on 10 Jul 2010 10:17 "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:89nrjaFqjhU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-08 12:55:07 -0700, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> said: >>> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:31:43 -0400, in >>>> <seydnXXzTc7lYKjRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" >>>> <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >>>>> "Compact" I think is the best used for more or less pocketable cameras >>>>> (Optio 750Z, Coolpix 5900, Powershot S80, etc.) while "ultracompact" >>>>> should >>>>> be reserved for those cameras that are really shirt-pocket size (Optio >>>>> S4i, >>>>> Coolpix S510 and thereabouts). >>> >>>> You need to broaden your horizons -- the FZ28 is easily pocketable in >>>> the jackets I use for outdoor shooting. >>> >>> My shooting waistcoat has two big pockets each one of which can easily >>> take a medium sized DSLR fitted with a 500mm reflex lens. > >> A pocketable 500mm !! ??? > >> Model? Specs? Weight? Inquiring minds need to know. > > Google 500mm reflex lens. These catadioptric mirror designs are very > much smaller and lighter than the usual refractor lenses. But they're > fixed aperture, Yes, and while most 500mm mirror lenses are nominally f/8, actual light transmission is equal to no better than f/11 because the big secondary mirror blocks off quite a lot. I had the Minolta 500 reflex back in my MD-mount days and that was a magnificent lens, but usually required a tripod. I also had Minolta's cute little 250mm f/5.6 mirror lens, incredibly small and a delight to use. It was never very popular for some reason though, and I don't think it was in production very long. > and except for the Minolta/Sony model, manual > focus. But being pocketable and light means you can easily carry one > around just in case and easily use it hand held (with appropriately > high shutter speeds). I wouldn't call the 500mm mirror lens pocketable. It was pretty big in diameter. > > (Except that manually focusing a hand held 500mm is never going to be > easy :-) Very true. Of course available ISO numbers are much higher now than when I had mine (back in the '70s), which would make a big difference I'm sure. Another problem (reportedly) with catadioptric lenses is that they are often very low in contrast, though that was not the case with the Minoltas. On the other hand they have essentially *no* chromatic aberration since that only occurs with refractors. (Mirror lenses do generally contain refracting correcting lenses as well, but evidently they're too weak to cause CA.)
From: Neil Harrington on 10 Jul 2010 10:24 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5g8f369t8rn9np4lvb10v0evm0vo5veh0v(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:10:39 -0400, "Neil Harrington" > <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >> >>All that illustrates is that the term has become popular for any digital >>camera that isn't an SLR. I don't dispute that it's become the most >>*popular* term, only that it isn't an appropriate one for many if not most >>of the cameras called that. I've seen little cheap digital cameras sold in >>blister packs at Walmart. For *those* the term P&S would probably be >>appropriate (I say this not really knowing anything about the cameras), >>because they are very likely analogous to the original and appropriately >>characterized 35mm point-and-shoot cameras. >> >>But really, do you believe a camera like the Nikon 8800, for example, or >>Canon G11, should be given the same type name as something that sells for >>$25 or whatever in a blister pack? Why should anything and everything that >>isn't an interchangeable-lens SLR be called a "P&S," when that term >>originally meant, and still implies, a simple-to-use little camera with >>practically no user controls and no indication about what the camera >>itself >>was doing in terms of exposure? > > > In the UK, the term "point and shoot" is not in general use. The > normal term is "compact". That I think is by far the more logical and appropriate term. > > Of course that isn't always accurate as some small-sensor cameras can > be quite large. But in most cases, it works. I agree. Actually there are a number of terms that are appropriate, but in the U.S. we seem to have perversely settled on the one term that is *least* appropriate.
From: Neil Harrington on 10 Jul 2010 10:34 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i195of$t70$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message > news:XMydncJ8Ko38A6rRnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > [] >> All that illustrates is that the term has become popular for any digital >> camera that isn't an SLR. I don't dispute that it's become the most >> *popular* term, only that it isn't an appropriate one for many if not >> most of the cameras called that. I've seen little cheap digital cameras >> sold in blister packs at Walmart. For *those* the term P&S would probably >> be appropriate (I say this not really knowing anything about the >> cameras), because they are very likely analogous to the original and >> appropriately characterized 35mm point-and-shoot cameras. >> >> But really, do you believe a camera like the Nikon 8800, for example, or >> Canon G11, should be given the same type name as something that sells for >> $25 or whatever in a blister pack? Why should anything and everything >> that isn't an interchangeable-lens SLR be called a "P&S," when that term >> originally meant, and still implies, a simple-to-use little camera with >> practically no user controls and no indication about what the camera >> itself was doing in terms of exposure? > [] > > That was one of the reasons I accepted the use of the term "ZLR" or > perhaps "bridge" camera - neither "compact", "P&S" or "SLR-like" was > appropriate or correct for one reason or another. Anyone who is really > interested in a camera such as the Nikon 8800 or Panasonic FZ38 isn't > going to worry too much about how it's categorised, more about how well it > works and what it might do for them. I think "bridge camera" is probably the better choice there. The only problem I have with "ZLR" is that such cameras aren't really reflex. But it is far, far preferable to "P&S" anyway when referring to a camera like the 8800. At least such a camera is comparable in design layout, function and capabilities to the original Olympus 35mm ZLR, which provides some justification for the usage.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 9 Jul 2010 14:57
Neil Harrington <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > That is entirely because of the difference in format sizes. The smaller the > format, the greater the possible zoom range. So there are superzoom lenses > with as much as 26x zoom range, which can only be made for very-small-format > cameras. Whoop de doo, but you can get video cameras with 35x zoom range -- > made possible by their even smaller formats. You can get TV lenses that have a 100x zoom range. So what? -Wolfgang |